‘You wait for 4 years for another case on bannisters and the Defective Premises Act 1972 and then two come along at once…

Sternbaum v Dhesi [2016] EWCA Civ 155

Dodd v Raebarn Estates Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 262 (QB)

Both can be dealt with fairly quickly and together, as the courts follow the same lines. Both cases involved falls on stairs, very sadly in Dodd, a fatal fall. In each case, there was no bannister to the staircase. Both claims were on appeal from being dismissed at first instance.’

‘Lafferty v Newark & Sherwood District Council [2016] EWHC 320 (QB). Does section 4(4) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 create a strict liability on the landlord for any defect, such that it covers latent or undetectable defects? The short answer is no. This appeal sets out why.’

‘The case of Rendlesham Estates Plc v Barr Ltd [2014] EWHC 3968 (TCC) is a bit off the housing law beaten track and as a result I have only recently got round to reading it properly. It concerned s.1, Defective Premises Act 1974, which is the statutory provision that enables any person with an interest in a dwelling to sue the person responsible for building the dwelling, or carrying out any work in connection with the dwelling, where the dwelling is not fit for human habitation when the work is completed.’

“A contractor who carried out works to a dwelling owed a duty under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 to see that the work was done in a workmanlike or professional manner. That duty was owed to the person for whom the works were carried out and the purchaser to whom that property was subsequently sold where the dwelling was new, or if refurbished or extended, it was wholly different from the old dwelling. The Act did not apply to improvements which did not sufficiently change the character of the property so as to amount to a new dwelling.”

“A finding that the premises were in imminent danger of collapse was not a necessary precursor to making a finding under the Defective Premises Act 1972 that a dwelling house was unfit for human habitation; and unfitness for habitation was to be construed as extending to defects of quality rendering the dwelling unsuitable for its purpose as well as to dangerous defects, regardless of whether such a defect was confined to one part of the dwelling or whether the effects of the defect were evident at the time when the dwelling was completed; and where there were a number of defects, it was necessary to consider the effect of the defects as a whole.”